They covered again on R4 PM.
Technically the King could issue a pardon - but technically that's 'I let you off what you did' and of course people (rightly) don't agree they did anything wrong.
Or the Gov could issue blanket legislation declaring all innocent..... (I mean, they can declare what they like after all!!) ....but the issue here is that parliament and the judiciary are supposed to be independent of each other, so the Gov shouldn't be overruling the courts.
Who, for all their advantage in not having the PO as prosecutor have still ended up with a bunch of cases, and very few through appeal yet
The Scottish appeals only got the first appeal through September last year so lots of catching up to do.
The tories seem to be focussing on blaming Ed Davey for the mess due to his position as post minister in the coalition (lets not mention who else was involved in that coalition since it does seem to come as a shock to the tories that they have been in power for the last 13 years) and a half arsed attempt against Starmer for being the CPS head when, ermm, private prosecutions were happening.
Vennels is handing her gong back
One of the investigators wrote to the head of the Post Office enquiring about compensation for them too for their loss of reputation from perjuring themselves in court
Is the end result of employing ex-posties and counter clerks as "investigators" and handing them extreme powers to act like cops without anything like the training or tests of competence I guess?
Vennels is handing her gong back
I can only suppose she doesn't want the public humiliation of having it taken off her?
One of the investigators wrote to the head of the Post Office enquiring about compensation for them too for their loss of reputation from perjuring themselves in court. <br /><br />
If they believed at the time of giving evidence they were telling the truth then they haven’t perjured themselves.
Is the end result of employing ex-posties and counter clerks as “investigators” and handing them extreme powers to act like cops without anything like the training or tests of competence I guess?
Now, now. They had to go on a <checks notes> three week residential course to become an investigator.
Took 27yrs to get the right inquest results after Hillsborough, protection of the few at the "top" always seems to trump the awful consequences to the average Joe bloggs on the street 😕
Paula Vennells said:
I am truly sorry for the devastation caused to the sub-postmasters and their families, whose lives were torn apart by being wrongly accused and wrongly prosecuted as a result of the Horizon system.
So, still no acknowledgement of the part that the Post Office played in this under her leadership.
Gov shouldn’t be overruling the courts.
but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it's own criminal prosecutions - something no other organisation is able to do? I think that's what needs to change any prosecutions need to go before the CPS for oversight..
Another fine example of a 'non apology' apology.
protection of the few at the “top” always seems to trump the awful consequences to the average Joe bloggs on the street
I work in an industry that's increasingly burdened with legislation and regulation that are pretty career ending if we get it wrong at any stage, and I can't help reflecting that those at the top with powers to make the sorts of decisions they have absolutely no training to do and no business making can often not only waltz off into the sunset with no punishment, but with the offer of an attractive pay-out to 'soften the blow'
The likes of Us will never be treated like Them
but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it’s own criminal prosecutions – something no other organisation is able to do? I think that’s what needs to change any prosecutions need to go before the CPS for oversight..
Not really IMHO
I can see some logic that cases need independent review but the issue isn't bringing prosecutions per se. In fact it's important that a private individual or company can bring a prosecution even if the state doesn't support it. Bring the evidence and let an independent judiciary and or jury make a decision - we all have that right. Having the power wasn't the issue, it was the abuse of it by the PO leaders.
The issue is that the evidence was false, or severely contestable but because of the cover ups and obfuscation never really came to light. 'Expert' witnesses from Fujitsu and PO seem to have just lied, but not get caught. I wonder if it could happen again now, with social media, they'd surely never be able to peddle the 'you're the only one this has happened to' lies. An expert's view against a solitary postmaster.... Vs the same story being told by 500+
I'm frequently told that I'm the only person to have a problem with something at work.
To be honest the parallels between the organisation of the Post Office and the NHS are frightening.
I wonder if it could happen again now, with social media, they’d surely never be able to peddle the ‘you’re the only one this has happened to’ lies.
IT companies seem to get away with charging millions and delivering crap time and time again. The bigger the project the bigger the balls-up
The amount of bandwagon-jumping by MP’s, who have done the sum total of **** all about any of this until this week is absolutely shameless
[cough] Election Year! [/cough]
🙂
but isnt the line on this completely blurred by the fact that the Post office, is allowed to bring it’s own criminal prosecutions – something no other organisation is able to do?
Other companies can as can you and I (although the upfront costs would likely be prohibitive for us). It was actually suggested, semi ironically, that the SPO go after the royal mail and fujitsu employees using private prosecutions. Hopefully the headlines from this means it wont be needed though.
The PO were unusual in that they actively did so in the past due to their weird historical structure (the forerunner of their investigation department predates the police and they never gave it up).
However it is thought (there is no central register so its difficult to track) that the number of private prosecutions by companies have been increasing over the last few years after the tories destruction of the justice system.
They get the money back for private prosecutions so it makes sense for insurance companies and the like to start running private prosecutions.
If you google private prosecutions and insurance there are lots of articles selling it to businesses.
So, still no acknowledgement of the part that the Post Office played in this under her leadership.
I assume since they gave her the award she is a tory.
If so isnt it just standard operating procedure for tories to be shocked they were in charge whilst they shit hit the fan?
Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.
An expert’s view against a solitary postmaster…. Vs the same story being told by 500+
Like I said on page 3, all postmasters and sub postmasters were asked a couple years ago if they had had incurred significant unexplained losses due to horizon between 1999 to current, and if they would be prepared to pursue postoffice for repayment. From what I've heard they had around 8000 responses.
There have been 500+ convictions, but I bet there isn't an postoffice in the country that doesn't have a story about how horizon didn't match up when audited, or 'bugs in the system'.
Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.
It may have come to the forefront of public attention, but the postoffice / horizon issues havet been raised in the house of commons for at least 10years.
Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.
Then they should have been paying attention.
It has been reported on extensively and has featured in several debates in the HoC especially around the inquiry being set up which most mps were in office for.
There is no excuse beyond incompetence for an mp not to be aware of it.
I've been aware of it for a couple of years now, I've always been surprised that it's not been more talked about. If you look I started (or revived?) a thread on this subject a few months ago, and it didn't get that much interest.
It's always deserved to be in the public eye, but unfortunately it hasn't been.
on the radio this morning, David Davies was saying that the heart of the prosecution evidence was on the basis that the only people that could access Horizon were the postmasters themselves therefore and changes / financial adjustments or whatever HAD to be the PM’s own work.
That was accepted at the time, now discredited so you can’t say with any certainty that the PM’s did it.
Been doing a bit more digging and one thing that strikes me is the PM's defence didn't do a great job of discrediting/questioning the Horizon system. For example, did they ask for a list of bugs/change requests that had occurred? The Dalmellington Bug entailed a user repeatedly hitting a key when the system froze as she was trying to acknowledge receipt of a consignment of £8,000 in cash. Unknown to her each time she struck the key she accepted responsibility for a further £8,000. The bug created a discrepancy of £24,000 for which she was held responsible.
And also asking who had admin rights on the Horizon system that would allow them to make changes to the underlying data. As far back as 2011 the SSC (support team) had APPSUP permissions on more than the intended basis which was supposed to be in extreme circumstances only and temporarily.
This guy has written extensively about the IT and auditing side of things:
https://clarotesting.wordpress.com/the-post-office-horizon-it-scandal/
Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.
That's very unlikely. I think you can assume that every one of the accused PMs will at some point have been in touch with their own MP. The now Lord Arbuthnott was the prominent figure and will have made noise in Westminster about it to anyone who might listen when he was MP. it has been mention in the commons and lords on numerous occasions. There is an ongoing public inquiry about it. The appeal cases were widely reported in mainstream media. Its unimaginable that if you asked any MP in mid Dec 2023 if they were aware of the Post Office / Horizon scandal that they would simply have said no. What they've failed to do is appreciate its general significance and that the wider public, presented with the story in a consumable fashion, would care.
Bear in mind that for quite a few MPs, they will only just have heard about this.
I think the vast majority of the adult population has known about it for a long time – I would question the suitability of office for any MP who remained unaware of it until they saw a drama on the telly.
Other companies can as can you and I (although the upfront costs would likely be prohibitive for us). It was actually suggested, semi ironically, that the SPO go after the royal mail and fujitsu employees using private prosecutions. Hopefully the headlines from this means it wont be needed though.
I'm not convinced that there's any detriment to only having one prosectuing authority? I've not heard anyone suggest that it is a problem in Scotland (where there is theoretically a mechanism for private prosecution, but only in such specific circumstances as to essentially mean there is not).
I don't think the PO is unique in English statutory bodies with prosecuting power - e.g. MCA, CAA, HSE all employ their own prosecutors and only include the CPS if the crimes become "mainstream" (e.g. manslaughter), and I think DWP, DVLA, HMRC all prosecute in their own right too?
The PO were unusual in that they actively did so in the past due to their weird historical structure (the forerunner of their investigation department predates the police and they never gave it up).
But they also continued to get those powers, its not a legacy that was mistakenly forgotten about - someone was consciously treating them as though they should have powers no private body would have. e.g. the Post Office Investigation Branch got powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in 2000 - which would let them do stuff ordinary private enterprises would not be permitted to.
I’m not convinced that there’s any detriment to only having one prosectuing authority?
Yes. My point is:
The Post Office wasnt using any special powers beyond other private companies in the majority and probably all of these cases.
It was using private prosecutions which are available to all.
Although the PO has had its wings clipped and is unlikely to be trying to use them anytime soon the use of private prosecutions is increasing elsewhere.
So for me looking at the use of private prosecutions (at the minimum having a central register where we can see how many are being run and by whom) seems a rather sensible next step to avoid some other company misusing them.
I think the RSPCA can also raise prosecutions without going through CPS
I'm still waiting to hear Venelles apology for the absolute state of her hair do.
I think the RSPCA can also raise prosecutions without going through CPS
Maybe they should use these powers to prosecute those responsible for the dog that is Horizon...?
Badoom tish etc.
Large IT systems can be almost impossible to manage at times and show me a complex one that has no bugs and I'll show you a liar... It's what you do with that knowledge that is the core of the issue here.
Toby Jones has just been signed up to play Michelle Mone in a drama about PPE. That’ll be a challenge for the make up department.
I believe that the difference is that the Post Office has it's own investigatory powers above and beyond those available to other private organisations, such as being able to interview under caution and request and serve warrants.
One of the issues seems to have been that some investigators were rather too ready to use Police Stations for interviews so that interviewees would be intimidated.
Large IT systems can be almost impossible to manage at times and show me a complex one that has no bugs and I’ll show you a liar… It’s what you do with that knowledge that is the core of the issue here.
I agree to a point, but no financial system even one subject to any regulations should be capable of what was documented.
If one of our systems was found to have issues on that levels it would be shut down. We have canned vendors for less than that in our systems. This is clinical trial software.
What was done here is inexcusable from a software level and a corporate governance level too, even ignoring the perjury
Agreed. Hence:'It’s what you do with that knowledge that is the core of the issue here'.
I didn't just mean harassing people to repay 'losses' but also the decisions to take compromised software into production.
I've done it (as I would imagine most of the Corporate IT wallahs on here). You have the test output, you know the issues outstanding but still go live planning to manage the issues as you fix them.
In this case, they seem to have jumped to 'blame everyone else' as well as doing that.
Toby Jones has just been signed up to play Michelle Mone in a drama about PPE. That’ll be a challenge for the make up department.
It'll be more of a challenge to make her look like a victim
The Post Office wasnt using any special powers beyond other private companies in the majority and probably all of these cases.
One of the defining elements of this was that the PO was suspending the SPMs and thus denying them access to documents/policies/evidence that could be required to mount a defence. This is a part of the reason why one of the Judges involved in some appeals refered a casefile to the CPS with concerns of fraud, perjury, etc.
Less about the prosecutory powers, but more about the deliberate hamstringing of the accused at the time. Utter bastards which ever way you slice it.
Anyone who followed this story knows it stank, it's taken a TV show and an upcoming election to really kick this off at pace.
Utterly depressing but the right result.
Has anybody described what exactly the Fujitsu people were actually changing in the live data ? Surely it would be blindingly obvious to them that the sub-postmasters systems wouldn't balance if they fiddled with payments/cash/stock and that they would notice straight away. What exactly were they trying to achieve and why ? And who told them to do that ?
And...
What obnoxious, vile creatures Paula Venelles and Angela Van Den Bogerd are/were. Jeez ...... They should be in jail.
The problem now is that the attention is focused on Vennells, which is fine, but the issue at the Post Office was caused by a huge systemic and moral failure pretty much throughout the organisation, and Fujitsu.
If Vennells is offered up as a sacrifice, but the rest are allowed to carry on coining it in, that's a failure.
The problem now is that the attention is focused on Vennells, which is fine, but the issue at the Post Office was caused by a huge systemic and moral failure pretty much throughout the organisation, and Fujitsu.
If Vennells is offered up as a sacrifice, but the rest are allowed to carry on coining it in, that’s a failure.
I was thinking the same, the CBE is simply a totem, a token, I'd like to see every member of that executive management team, including whomever was the government representative to answer questions at the inquiry.
The CEO doesn't operate in a vacuum.
CBE
answer questions at the inquiry
I fail to see how you can preside over (Vennells) or be significantly involved in (other execs and senior people) this process, resulting in the knowing wrongful prosecution, imprisonment, financial and psychological ruin of thousands of people, and there not be a criminal charge for your actions.
Not being able to write some letters after your name and having a stern talking to doesn't really seem an appropriate punishment.
Jesus ****ing wept, that cretin. A bitter irony that deplorable liar would have a connection to this shitstorm.
I don't do Twitter, so can someone summarize?
